How to piss off a nation? One word: Sequester
GOP’s sequester shenanigans carry risks for 2014
By Jamelle Bouie, WashPost, Updated: February 19, 2013
A few moments ago, President Obama renewed his call for a temporary solution to averting the sequester — one that contains a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases, rather than just the spending cuts Republicans want. Obama pointedly noted that the GOP position was akin to Democrats demanding that we avert the sequester only through tax hikes.
This is a difficult political position for Republicans to sustain, for the reasons Greg pointed out this morning. But judging by the immediate Twitter response to Obama’s remarks, House Republicans are convinced they can blame the sequester on Obama, or at least, certain they can avoid political blowback for any economic slowdown that comes as a result of implementing large, across-the-board spending cuts. Their reasoning is straightforward: The public is results-oriented and unconcerned about the particulars of congressional procedure. Americans neither know nor care about how created the sequester, they are just looking for Washington to get something done. And since, for most Americans, the president is representative of Washington, any gridlock will harm Obama far more than it does Congress, and Republicans in particular.
In one sense Republicans are close to the mark as far as the political dynamics of this are concerned. Yes, Obama can use the “bully pulpit” to castigate Republicans and highlight the consequences of letting the sequester go through. As The Hill points out, the White House has already warned “that the cuts will reduce loan guarantees to small businesses, end Head Start funding for 70,000 children and leave 373,000 seriously mentally ill people without treatment.”
But as we saw with the fight over the fiscal cliff in 2011, those warnings mean little to a public that just wants action from Washington. Remember, the outcome of that fight wasn’t just lower approval for Congress and congressional Republicans, but a lower rating for Obama as well. That fall saw Obama’s popularity reach its nadir, and he has the debt ceiling crisis to thank for it. Even if he wins the sequester stand-off, odds are good the public will blame him for any economic harm that comes as a result.
(More here.)
A few moments ago, President Obama renewed his call for a temporary solution to averting the sequester — one that contains a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases, rather than just the spending cuts Republicans want. Obama pointedly noted that the GOP position was akin to Democrats demanding that we avert the sequester only through tax hikes.
This is a difficult political position for Republicans to sustain, for the reasons Greg pointed out this morning. But judging by the immediate Twitter response to Obama’s remarks, House Republicans are convinced they can blame the sequester on Obama, or at least, certain they can avoid political blowback for any economic slowdown that comes as a result of implementing large, across-the-board spending cuts. Their reasoning is straightforward: The public is results-oriented and unconcerned about the particulars of congressional procedure. Americans neither know nor care about how created the sequester, they are just looking for Washington to get something done. And since, for most Americans, the president is representative of Washington, any gridlock will harm Obama far more than it does Congress, and Republicans in particular.
In one sense Republicans are close to the mark as far as the political dynamics of this are concerned. Yes, Obama can use the “bully pulpit” to castigate Republicans and highlight the consequences of letting the sequester go through. As The Hill points out, the White House has already warned “that the cuts will reduce loan guarantees to small businesses, end Head Start funding for 70,000 children and leave 373,000 seriously mentally ill people without treatment.”
But as we saw with the fight over the fiscal cliff in 2011, those warnings mean little to a public that just wants action from Washington. Remember, the outcome of that fight wasn’t just lower approval for Congress and congressional Republicans, but a lower rating for Obama as well. That fall saw Obama’s popularity reach its nadir, and he has the debt ceiling crisis to thank for it. Even if he wins the sequester stand-off, odds are good the public will blame him for any economic harm that comes as a result.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
2 Comments:
The White House proposed the idea of a compulsory trigger and now the GOP is going along with a White House proposal. Some would call it bipartisan.
If the GOP is interested in expanding its House majority, and taking back the Senate, it might want to think twice about manufacturing another stand-off with the president. It’ll satisfy the Republican base, at the cost of alienating everyone else.
Both parties have their eyes on 2014, but some will be concerned about now.
If there is a lesson, look to the Minnesota government shutdown of 2011 ...
The shock of a shuttered Capitol, of 22,000 laid-off state workers and of barricaded state parks in the heart of Minnesota’s camping season seems, did not affect most of us ... but there were questions ...
May local officials dredge so barges can get through here along the Mississippi River even though laid-off state officials are not around to watch? Might 41 State Patrol officers not quite done with field training be deemed essential and sent back to work like others in the patrol?
Could state workers sign the adoption forms for a Minnesota couple who had been sitting in a Texas motel room with their new baby for the last week, unable to cross state lines without the paperwork?
The Head Start cuts will not cause Republicans to react -- but Business will.
Ag businesses are getting the word that inspectors will not be available ...
Defense contractors will hear that DCAA people will not be there to certify product ... delaying billing and shipments.
FAA is be impacted ... effecting business travelers.
etc.
The only plan that I heard is the H.R. 593 The Down Payment to Protect National Security Act of 2013. In short, the legislation would reduce federal civilian employees, including those in the Defense Department, by 10 percent over 10 years. For every three people who leave the agency, one can be hired. The proposed savings of $85 billion would replace the amount that would have been cut by the fiscal 2013 sequester, including $46 billion from the Pentagon budget.
That proposal was greeted by the Club For Growth as Fiscally Irresponsible but actually it is unrealistic ... the cuts produce virtually nothing in the first years and suggests that high turnover functions (border patrol) would see the impact long before bureaucratic agencies.
The election should have taught the Republicans that being in the House will taint you for higher office -- just ask, President Bachmann, Senator Berg, Senator Rehberg, Senator Akins, and Senator Mack.
Post a Comment
<< Home